National
Kagan denounces ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Supreme Court nominee calls gay ban ‘unwise, unjust’
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was questioned this week about her handling of issues related to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and a controversy over allowing the U.S. military to recruit on college campuses emerged as central concerns during U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings this week.
The issues emerged Tuesday during the second day of hearings for Kagan — who’s currently serving as U.S. solicitor general — in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was expected to continue throughout the week.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) directed pointed questions at Kagan about the views she expressed as dean of Harvard Law School over military recruitment on campus.
According to media reports, in October 2003 Kagan wrote in an e-mail to students that military recruiting on campus caused her “deep distress” and that she “abhor[s] the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy.”
In testimony, Kagan affirmed her opposition to the ban on open service as dean and said she still holds that belief.
“I have repeatedly said that I believe that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy is unwise and unjust,” she said. “I believed it then and I believe it now.”
Kagan said as dean she tried to ensure military recruiters had “full and complete access” while she simultaneously tried to enforce Harvard’s non-discrimination policy that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.
She said she worked out a compromise as dean that enabled a veterans’ organization to sponsor military recruiters on campus as opposed to the U.S. military itself. Kagan noted that this policy was changed after the Defense Department voiced concerns about not having full access.
Sessions was critical of her efforts and cited examples of actions she took that he said raised doubts about her support for the U.S. military.
The ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sessions has voiced concerns about the Kagan nomination throughout the confirmation process and is a likely vote against seating her on the Supreme Court.
Sessions said Kagan participated in a campus protest and spoke out against the Solomon Amendment, which allows the U.S. government to withhold federal funding from universities if they restrict military recruitment on campus.
The senator cited a friend-of-the-court brief that Kagan signed as one of 40 Harvard professors in favor a U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2004 overturning the Solomon Amendment.
In response, Kagan characterized the brief as an argument that Harvard’s accommodation for military recruiters through a veterans’ group was consistent with the Solomon Amendment.
“We filed an amicus brief not attacking the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, but instead saying simply that Harvard policy complied with the Solomon Amendment,” she said.
Kagan noted that in the end, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the arguments presented by Harvard professors in a 2006 decision upholding the Solomon Amendment.
Sessions accused Kagan of engaging in unscrupulous activity at Harvard by instituting a new policy following the Third Circuit ruling and suggested she shouldn’t have issued a change because the Solomon Amendment remained in effect.
The senator said Kagan’s description of events was “unconnected to reality” and that he was “a little taken aback” by her remarks.
“I know what happened at Harvard,” he said. “I know you’ve been [an] outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted — without legal authority — to reverse Harvard’s policy to deny the military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government with the loss of critical funds.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Judiciary Committee, interrupted Sessions to allow Kagan to respond to Sessions’ remarks.
Noting her father was a military veteran, Kagan said she has “respect” for the military and “one of the great privileges” of her time at Harvard was working with students who were former service members or who wanted to enter the military.
Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said Kagan “took the position that we expected her to take” in response to Sessions’ questioning by explaining school policy on military recruitment.
“I don’t think this is huge issue because, I think, it’s very much in the mainstream of law schools’ decision-making around ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and the Solomon Amendment,” NeJaime said. “And so, I think she defended the position in a satisfactory way.”
NeJaime said Sessions was trying to make it seem that Kagan was trying to undermine the U.S. military during her tenure as dean, or prevent them having access to students.
“She made it very clear that that’s not what she was doing,” NeJaime said. “The military had access to the students, and students had access to the military, and she had great respect for the military.”
Kagan’s opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — which she articulated during her confirmation hearings — renews the question of whether she would have to recuse herself if confirmed and the issue came before the high court.
But NeJaime said he didn’t think such statements meant that Kagan wouldn’t be able to take part in a case on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“She’s been pretty clear about speaking about it as a political matter and as an ethical matter,” NeJaime said. “She thinks it’s a bad policy, but I don’t think that that means she can’t fairly adjudicate equal protection or due process claims raised by the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.”
Further questions arose about LGBT cases in which Kagan may have to recuse herself in light of Leahy’s questioning on what matters she believed she would have sit out if they came to the bench.
In response to Leahy’s questioning, Kagan said she would recuse herself in cases that came before the court if she had been a “counsel of record” in any state of the process for litigation.
“I think there are probably about 10 cases that are on the docket next year … in which I have been a counsel of record in a petition for certiorari” or played a similar role, she said.
During her tenure as solicitor general, the Justice Department issued several briefs in defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — as well as the Defense of Marriage Act — in response to legal challenges in federal courts.
But NeJaime said the briefs don’t represent Kagan acting as a counsel of record because they originated under the jurisdiction of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
“She’s in the solicitor general’s office whereas the papers filed in the DOMA cases have been coming from the Justice Department,” NeJaime said. “So she actually hasn’t been counsel of record on any cases implicating the Defense of Marriage Act, so I don’t see any problem there.”
NeJaime added this situation would also apply with respect to Justice Department’s response to legal challenges of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Senegalese NGO claims new president discussed LGBTQ rights with top EU official
What Anne Arundel County school board candidates think about book bans
It’s game, set, and mismatch in unfulfilling ‘Challengers’
D.C. Council member proposes change for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
New World Bank US executive director: LGBTQ rights are human rights
